IAR80, etc., - Handling characteristics?

Many years ago there used to be a British aviation magazine with a regular section titled "From the Cockpit" in which an experienced pilot would give an account of what it was actually like to fly a particular type, with all its little peculiarities, weaknesses, strong points, bad and good habits, irritating features, design flaws, etc.

Has anyone done this for Romanian types? If not, it had better be done soon, before the last WWII pilots die off.

Cheers,

Sid.

For IAR 80-81 some accounts of flying particularities from pilot view were published in the book " IAR-80 -Istoria unui vanator necunoscut " authors Dan Antoniu and George Cicos.

Lt.Dobran Ion ( who flew IAR 80) remember when he made turns at high speed his feeling that he running after the engine due to cockpit position far back from the CG.

And Lt. Gulan Ion returning from a combat mission with 2 or 3 cilinder blow up by enemy fire and the engine still running and safely returning to his airfield ( after buzzing over his fiancee hospital nearby).

Hi Cantacuzino,

The first example is exactly the sort of detail that I am talking about. What were these planes like to fly when fully serviceable. We know that the Merlin engine in early Spitfires used to cut out in a vertical dive. We know that the undercarriage of the Bf109 was too narrow to be stable. However, we don't seem to know similar things about the IAR80. I know the IARK14 engine was temperamental, but that is about all. But was the IAR80 a steady gun platform? How did its turning circle compare with other types? Presumably its bubbled cockpit canopy gave it better visibility than, say, a Bf109.

I seem to remember reading that a German pilot flew an early IAR80 and wrote a report on it. Does this report survive? It would be most intersting to read a proper technical evaluation made by an experienced and independent pilot.

Unfortunately I was too late to get the Antoniu/Cicos book in Romanian, but I have ordered a copy of the French edition - if and when it comes out.

Cheers,

Sid.

Its bubled canopy gave even more: the inability of pilots to get out of the plane after a crashlanding - some burned due to this
Sid I only wish IAR-80 the book was translated into english, you would find many interesting infos (it has also errors and contradictions, but considering the conditions under which it was published, it is an excellent book, thank you George and Dan).

Peter Petersen burned alive, not because he couldn't get out, but because the seat belts broke during the emergency landing and he hit the gunsight and fainted. The seat belts were replaced following this incident with better ones.

Mytzu is right, the cockpit canopy would not slide back in case of a fuselage torsion, even a minor one. This claimed some of the pilots' lives, they not being able to bail out from the burning airplane (remember, the I.A.R. 80's main fuel tank was placed right in front of the pilot, so in case it was hit during flight the flames swept right into the cockpit).

Gen. Dénes

Hi!
When we spoke with Mr.Chera,he sed that it has a great maneuvrability but it was underpowered,with 3-400 HP more was to be a great airplane.It was a good,stable firing platform with good fire power,especialy with two Mauser.But in the last campaign(1944-1945) was totaly obsolete,used for gopund atack.The pilots complains about that beacuse it has no belly protection against ground fire.
The book from french editor I think will not come out.Maybe wiil find onothe editor for the revised book,with meny news and corrections,victory declarations and so on.We solved the dispute about the origins of the IAR-80,IAR-47,IAR-37,38 and -39s.The wrong thing was to switch from the Bristol Mercury production to GR.
In 1938 o commision from RA wanted to buy 12 "Spitfires" and the license for those plus the licence for RR"Merlin" engines.No luck!

I had a colleague at ROCAR (I guess this factory is bankrupt now). He said that his father was pilot on IAR-80. As the family name survives when transmitted to men, maybe we can trace the pilot. My former colleague's family name is Firu.
He told to me that, according to his father:

1. The average IAR-80, in a regular day, had a speed much lower than the famous 510 km/h (300mph). This was already confirmed few times on this site.

2. The airplane had the tendency to "tilt" with the nose downward, so strong that in addition to the correction made with the horizontal stabilizer and the elevators, they had to hang a weight under tail, for equilibrium.
Well, this second tale is quite unusual, so the problem is open to your comments.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 04, 2005 11:41 pm

It was a pilot with this name, Lt.Firu but from 7 FG ( Messerschmitt).

Yes, in fact Adj. av. Vasile Firu (killed on 27-Aug-43 on the Eastern Front).

Gen. Dénes

P.S. By the way, RA is short for Regia Aeronautica, i.e. Royal Italian Air Force (see earlier post).

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 05, 2005 01:36 am

Wasn't he Gheorghe Firu?

Hi George and Florin,

Those are exactly the sort of details I am talking about. We can always find details of the official specifications of any type when performed under ideal test conditions. However, they all had hidden quirks that do not appear on the official specifications. it is often these that gave each type its character in the eyes of the pilots.

Next time somebody talks to a pilot, could they ask him to go through the full procedure for a flight? How many revs to take off? How much angle on the flaps to land, etc.? What were G forces like in a tight turn? How did a 500Kg bomb affect the handling of an IAR81? How did the IAR80 out- or under-perform other types, etc. Such information is often not in the official records.

Cheers,

Sid.

Is it true that it was the same thing with the Spitfire?

Sid, that bomb was 225 Kg. - 500pounds.

Iama

How was this related to the bubbled shape of the canopy?